[MIB-DOCTORS] RE: MIB doctor review of draft-ietf-mboned-ip-mcast-mib-05.txt

["Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[e-mail]>]

Thanks, John. 

Document shepherd and editors - please address the comments in John's
review. 

I guess that with Bert and John's comments altogether 'Revised ID
needed' is the appropriate state. 

Dan


 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Flick [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2007 5:42 AM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); [e-mail]; 
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; 
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: MIB doctor review of draft-ietf-mboned-ip-mcast-mib-05.txt
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I have completed my review of draft-ietf-forces-mib-04, as 
> requested by Dan Romascanu.
> 
> The following comments are structured according to the MIB 
> Review Checklist in Appendix A of RFC 4181.
> 
> This document was already "pre-reviewed" by Bert Wijnen, so I 
> have attempted to avoid overlap with his comments.
> 
> 1. I-D Boilerplate - OK.
> 
> 2. Abstract - OK.
> 
> 3. MIB Boilerplate - OK.
> 
> 4. Security Considerations - Does not follow the approved 
> boilerplate verbatim, but it does appear complete and well 
> written, and if anything provides more detail than the usual 
> boilerplate text.
> 
> 5. IANA Considerations Section - should probably follow the 
> template in RFC 4181, section 3.5.2.
> 
> 6. References:
> 
> ID-nits reports the following:
> 
>    == Unused Reference: 'RFC2434' is defined on line 2308, but no
>       explicit reference was found in the text
>       '[RFC2434]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines 
> for Writing
>       an...'
> 
>    == Unused Reference: 'RFC3306' is defined on line 2331, but no
>       explicit reference was found in the text
>       '[RFC3306]  Haberman, B. and D. Thaler, 
> "Unicast-Prefix-based IPv6
>       Mu...'
> 
>    == Unused Reference: 'RFC4007' is defined on line 2343, but no
>       explicit reference was found in the text
>       '[RFC4007]  Deering, S., Haberman, B., Jinmei, T., Nordmark, E.,
>       and...'
> 
>    == Unused Reference: 'RFC4291' is defined on line 2347, but no
>       explicit reference was found in the text
>       '[RFC4291]  Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
>       Archi...'
> 
>    == Unused Reference: 'I-D.mcwalter-langtag-mib' is defined on line
>       2353, but no explicit reference was found in the text
>       '[I-D.mcwalter-langtag-mib] McWalter, D., "Language Tag MIB",
>       draft-m...'
> 
>    == Unused Reference: 'RFC1075' is defined on line 2360, but no
>       explicit reference was found in the text
>       '[RFC1075]  Waitzman, D., Partridge, C., and S. 
> Deering, "Distance
>       Ve...'
> 
>    == Unused Reference: 'RFC1584' is defined on line 2364, but no
>       explicit reference was found in the text
>       '[RFC1584]  Moy, J., "Multicast Extensions to OSPF", RFC 1584,
>       March...'
> 
>    == Unused Reference: 'RFC2189' is defined on line 2367, but no
>       explicit reference was found in the text
>       '[RFC2189]  Ballardie, T., "Core Based Trees (CBT version 2)
>       Multicas...'
> 
>    == Unused Reference: 'RFC2287' is defined on line 2371, but no
>       explicit reference was found in the text
>       '[RFC2287]  Krupczak, C. and J. Saperia, "Definitions of
>       System-Level...'
> 
>    == Unused Reference: 'RFC2934' is defined on line 2378, but no
>       explicit reference was found in the text
>       '[RFC2934]  McCloghrie, K., Farinacci, D., Thaler, D., and B.
>       Fenner,...'
> 
>    == Unused Reference: 'RFC4601' is defined on line 2389, but no
>       explicit reference was found in the text
>       '[RFC4601]  Fenner, B., Handley, M., Holbrook, H., and 
> I. Kouvelas,
>       "...'
> 
>    == Unused Reference: 'I-D.ietf-pim-bidir' is defined on 
> line 2393, but
>       no explicit reference was found in the text
>       '[I-D.ietf-pim-bidir] Handley, M., Kouvelas, I., 
> Speakman, T., and
>       L....'
> 
>    == Outdated reference: A later version (-03) exists of
>       draft-mcwalter-langtag-mib-02
> 
>    -- Possible downref: Normative reference to a draft: ref.
>       'I-D.mcwalter-langtag-mib'  (No intended status found 
> in state file
>       of draft-mcwalter-langtag-mib)
> 
> Many of these are referenced within the MIB module itself, 
> but I think there typically needs to be a [ref] in the text.  
> See RFC 4780, section
> 5.3 for a recent example of one possible way to handle this.
> 
> 7. Copyright Notices - OK.
> 
> 8. IPR Notice - OK
> 
> 9. ID-Checklist issues - OK
> 
> 10. Technical content
> 
> 10.1  smilint returns the following warnings:
> 
> mibs/IPMCAST-MIB:22: [1] {module-not-found} failed to locate 
> MIB module
>   `LANGTAG-TC-MIB'
> mibs/IPMCAST-MIB:68: [2] {bad-identifier-case} `XXX' should 
> start with a
>   lower case letter
> mibs/IPMCAST-MIB:68: [2] {object-identifier-not-prefix} Object
>   identifier element `XXX' name only allowed as first element
> mibs/IPMCAST-MIB:1479: [2] {basetype-unknown} type `LangTag' of node
>   `ipMcastScopeNameLanguage' does not resolve to a known base type
> mibs/IPMCAST-MIB:1392: [1] {index-illegal-basetype} illegal base type
>   `LangTag' in index element `ipMcastScopeNameLanguage' of row
>   ipMcastScopeNameEntry
> mibs/IPMCAST-MIB:1410: [2] {type-unknown} unknown type `LangTag'
> 
> These all seem okay.
> 
> 10.2  In the ipMcastInterfaceTable, you define the following counters:
> ipMcastInterfaceInMcastOctets, 
> ipMcastInterfaceOutMcastOctets, ipMcastInterfaceInMcastPkts, 
> ipMcastInterfaceOutMcastPkts.
> How do these counters differ from the following counters in 
> the IP-MIB (RFC 4293): ipIfStatsHCInMcastOctets, 
> ipIfStatsHCOutMcastOctets, ipIfStatsHCInMcastPkts, 
> ipIfStatsHCOutMcastPkts?
> 
> 10.3  Typo: ipMcastRouteTimeStamp DESCRIPTION:
> s/infomration/information
> 
> 10.4  It seems that we now have two different ways of 
> configuring scope zone boundaries for IPv6 multicast: the 
> ipMcastBoundaryTable in this document and the 
> ipv6ScopeZoneIndexTable in RFC 4293.  How do we handle cases 
> where these tables are not configured consistently?
> 
> 10.5  Does the ipMcastLocalListenerTable present essentially 
> the same information as the mgmdHostCacheTable in the 
> draft-ietf-magma-mgmd-mib?
> Do we need both tables?
> 
> 10.6  The ipMcastLocalListenerTable is not indexed by 
> interface.  Don't local listeners ordinarily register per-interface?
> 
> 10.7 ipMcastMIBRouteGroup: with my implementer hat on, I see 
> that ipMcastRoutePkts, ipMcastRouteTtlDropPackets and 
> ipMcastRouteDifferentInIfPackets are all required for 
> routers.  I have worked on multicast routing on a few 
> different ASICs, from a few different manufacturers, and only 
> one of them would have had the necessary instrumentation to 
> implement these counters.  Can we really make them mandatory 
> if there is a lot of silicon out there that can't support them?
> 
> 
> I hope the above comments are helpful.
> 
> Thanks,
> John
> 


_______________________________________________
MIB-DOCTORS mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mib-doctors